Moved out early during a lease, landlord then sold home, am I responsible for ongoing rent until New Buyer Occupies House?

[iowanhalstead22]

Live in Iowa. Moved out of a rental house May 31st, have already paid June rent as landlord is trying to re-rent the property. Our lease goes until the end of July 2019. However, the landlord informed us that she has agreed to sell the house to a buyer, effective today, June 5th. Am I still responsible for rent through the expected closing date on the house sale (July 12th) and when it is occupied, or should I receive rent pro-rated back to me for June that I already paid and not pay any July rent because the landlord is obviously no longer trying to re-rent the property?

 

[LdiJ]

Live in Iowa. Moved out of a rental house May 31st, have already paid June rent as landlord is trying to re-rent the property. Our lease goes until the end of July 2019. However, the landlord informed us that she has agreed to sell the house to a buyer, effective today, June 5th. Am I still responsible for rent through the expected closing date on the house sale (July 12th) and when it is occupied, or should I receive rent pro-rated back to me for June that I already paid and not pay any July rent because the landlord is obviously no longer trying to re-rent the property?

I don't think that you would get any of June rent back. You might have to pay prorated rent until the closing date, but I would not volunteer to pay it.

 

[iowanhalstead22]

Here is the Iowa statute on it, which I don't think is being upheld now because the house has been sold:

562A.29 Remedies for absence, nonuse and abandonment. 1. If the rental agreement requires the tenant to give notice to the landlord of an anticipated extended absence as provided in section 562A.20, and the tenant willfully fails to do so, the landlord may recover actual damages from the tenant. 2. During an absence of the tenant in excess of fourteen days, the landlord may enter the dwelling unit at times reasonably necessary. 3. If the tenant abandons the dwelling unit, the landlord shall make reasonable efforts to rent it at a fair rental. If the landlord rents the dwelling unit for a term beginning prior to the expiration of the rental agreement, it is deemed to be terminated as of the date the new tenancy begins. The rental agreement is deemed to be terminated by the landlord as of the date the landlord has notice of the abandonment, if the landlord fails to use reasonable efforts to rent the dwelling unit at a fair rental or if the landlord accepts the abandonment as a surrender. If the tenancy is from month-to-month, or week-to-week, the term of the rental agreement for this purpose shall be deemed to be a month or a week, as the case may be. [C79, 81, §562A.29]

 

[Zigner]

I agree with iowanhalstead22's contention that the LL has failed to use reasonable efforts to rent the dwelling at a fair rental.

 

[adjusterjack]

the landlord informed us that she has agreed to sell the house to a buyer, effective today, June 5th.

Then you can bet she didn't try to rent it out during the first 5 days of June.

If she keeps your security deposit I think it would be worth suing for June and the security deposit based on failure to mitigate. No guarantees, just saying that the amount of money makes a small claims lawsuit worthwhile.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree with iowanhalstead22's contention that the LL has failed to use reasonable efforts to rent the dwelling at a fair rental.

The OP moved out 5 days ago. The landlord already has a buyer and will close on the property in about 37 days. What are the odds that he could have gotten a new renter in the place faster than that? I do understand that the law specifically uses the language that the landlord must use reasonable effort to re-rent the place at a fair market rent, but if a landlord can find a buyer and get a closing date within the same time parameter as "reasonable", would that really lead to a potential ruling that the landlord did not take all reasonable effort to mitigate damages?

 

[Zigner]

The OP moved out 5 days ago. The landlord already has a buyer and will close on the property in about 37 days. What are the odds that he could have gotten a new renter in the place faster than that? I do understand that the law specifically uses the language that the landlord must use reasonable effort to re-rent the place at a fair market rent, but if a landlord can find a buyer and get a closing date within the same time parameter as "reasonable", would that really lead to a potential ruling that the landlord did not take all reasonable effort to mitigate damages?

The owner did not attempt to find a new renter, as the statute requires. I'm not sure I understand the intent of your post.

 

[LdiJ]

The owner did not attempt to find a new renter, as the statute requires. I'm not sure I understand the intent of your post.

The intent of my point is that court results do not always depend upon semantics. Yes, the plain language of the statute says re-rent the unit. However the OP should at least consult with a local attorney before assuming that the landlord would lose in court because he immediately got an offer to buy and sold the property instead and got a closing within 37 days.

 

[adjusterjack]

LdiJ, if your question is did the landlord fail to mitigate as of June 1, I believe that the answer is yes and is, therefore, not entitled to any rent from June 1 onward.

The Iowa Supreme Court made that clear in Vawter v. McKissick (1968).

Defendant/Tenant McKissick abandoned the premises on December 31 1965, delivering the keys to Plaintiff/Landlord Vawter that day. Landlord waited until the lease ran out on May 31, 1966 and then sue for all the rent. The trial court ruled in favor of the tenants.

Some quotes from the case:

"In this state we are committed to the doctrine that when a tenant wrongfully abandons leased premises, the landlord is under a duty to show reasonable diligence has been used to relet the property at the best obtainable rent and thereby obviate or reduce the resulting damage"

"The trial court held plaintiff had an affirmative obligation to show she did something beginning January 1, 1966, to try to relet the leased premises."

"The burden of proof was on the appellees [landlord] to show diligence in reletting the property."

"The court stated it was his impression from hearing plaintiff's testimony she was more than happy to let the lease run out and attempt to collect the balance of the rent from defendants; and it was significant that while she claimed she was unable to rent the building during the rest of the term, she was able to rent it within seven days after the lease expired.

The action of the trial court in dismissing plaintiff's petition and giving her the abandoned property covered by the attachment is

Affirmed."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17494708805208206716&q=landlord+mitigation&hl=en&as_sdt=4,16
The landlord's duty to mitigate was later codified in Iowa statute 562A.3:

https://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2018/title-xiv/chapter-562a/section-562a.29/
In DR Mobile Home Rentals v. Frost (1996) the court wrote:

"We can find no reason to believe that the enactment of chapter 562A in any way changed the common-law rule that "a showing of diligence in reletting the premises is an essential element of [a landlord's] right to recover." Vawter v. McKissick, 159 N.W.2d 538, 542 (Iowa 1968).[1] We therefore reaffirm our Vawter holding: "n an action brought by a landlord against a tenant who has wrongfully abandoned the leased premises prior to the expiration of the term, the landlord must allege and prove what [was done] in attempting to rerent the premises after [the landlord] knew or should have known they were abandoned.""

"We reverse the award for unpaid rent because the landlord failed to allege and prove what it did in attempting to rerent the abandoned unit."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1473768050980937534&hl=en&as_sdt=1000005&sciodt=4,16

The intent of my point is that court results do not always depend upon semantics. Yes, the plain language of the statute says re-rent the unit. However the OP should at least consult with a local attorney before assuming that the landlord would lose in court because he immediately got an offer to buy and sold the property instead and got a closing within 37 days.

In other states, both statute and case law indicate that converting the rental to the landlord's own use, i.e.: selling it without re-renting constitutes failure to mitigate.

I didn't go any further than the two cases that cited but my guess is that Iowa courts might rule similarly.

The amount at issue for OP is likely within the Iowa small claims limit of $6500.

(I don't know why this changed to italics. The gremlins won't let me put it back.)

 

[LdiJ]

LdiJ, if your question is did the landlord fail to mitigate as of June 1, I believe that the answer is yes and is, therefore, not entitled to any rent from June 1 onward.

The Iowa Supreme Court made that clear in Vawter v. McKissick (1968).

Defendant/Tenant McKissick abandoned the premises on December 31 1965, delivering the keys to Plaintiff/Landlord Vawter that day. Landlord waited until the lease ran out on May 31, 1966 and then sue for all the rent. The trial court ruled in favor of the tenants.

Some quotes from the case:

"In this state we are committed to the doctrine that when a tenant wrongfully abandons leased premises, the landlord is under a duty to show reasonable diligence has been used to relet the property at the best obtainable rent and thereby obviate or reduce the resulting damage"

"The trial court held plaintiff had an affirmative obligation to show she did something beginning January 1, 1966, to try to relet the leased premises."

"The burden of proof was on the appellees [landlord] to show diligence in reletting the property."

"The court stated it was his impression from hearing plaintiff's testimony she was more than happy to let the lease run out and attempt to collect the balance of the rent from defendants; and it was significant that while she claimed she was unable to rent the building during the rest of the term, she was able to rent it within seven days after the lease expired.

The action of the trial court in dismissing plaintiff's petition and giving her the abandoned property covered by the attachment is

Affirmed."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17494708805208206716&q=landlord+mitigation&hl=en&as_sdt=4,16
The landlord's duty to mitigate was later codified in Iowa statute 562A.3:

https://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2018/title-xiv/chapter-562a/section-562a.29/
In DR Mobile Home Rentals v. Frost (1996) the court wrote:

"We can find no reason to believe that the enactment of chapter 562A in any way changed the common-law rule that "a showing of diligence in reletting the premises is an essential element of [a landlord's] right to recover." Vawter v. McKissick, 159 N.W.2d 538, 542 (Iowa 1968).[1] We therefore reaffirm our Vawter holding: "n an action brought by a landlord against a tenant who has wrongfully abandoned the leased premises prior to the expiration of the term, the landlord must allege and prove what [was done] in attempting to rerent the premises after [the landlord] knew or should have known they were abandoned.""

"We reverse the award for unpaid rent because the landlord failed to allege and prove what it did in attempting to rerent the abandoned unit."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1473768050980937534&hl=en&as_sdt=1000005&sciodt=4,16


In other states, both statute and case law indicate that converting the rental to the landlord's own use, i.e.: selling it without re-renting constitutes failure to mitigate.

I didn't go any further than the two cases that cited but my guess is that Iowa courts might rule similarly.

The amount at issue for OP is likely within the Iowa small claims limit of $6500.

(I don't know why this changed to italics. The gremlins won't let me put it back.)

The OP left the place on May 31st, 2019 (5 days ago). Per the OP the landlord immediately started looking for new tenants and got an offer to sell the place instead and a closing date is already set. How is that not mitigating damages?

I understand that converting the property to one's own use is not normally mitigating damages. However, this landlord did not start out with the intent of doing that and ended up with a sale that is going so rapidly that its about as fast as it would have been re-rented (on a quick basis) anyway. I do not think that this particular case is as black and white as others think it is. I also don't get where people are getting June 1st as the signficant date.

I also don't think that the cases you cited are really on point. None of them appear to involve a situation where the landlord started out trying to re-rent the space and ended up with a quick buyer. They do demonstrate the law as written, but not the circumstances that we have here.

 

[Zigner]

LdiJ, if your question is did the landlord fail to mitigate as of June 1, I believe that the answer is yes and is, therefore, not entitled to any rent from June 1 onward.

The Iowa Supreme Court made that clear in Vawter v. McKissick (1968).

Defendant/Tenant McKissick abandoned the premises on December 31 1965, delivering the keys to Plaintiff/Landlord Vawter that day. Landlord waited until the lease ran out on May 31, 1966 and then sue for all the rent. The trial court ruled in favor of the tenants.

Some quotes from the case:

"In this state we are committed to the doctrine that when a tenant wrongfully abandons leased premises, the landlord is under a duty to show reasonable diligence has been used to relet the property at the best obtainable rent and thereby obviate or reduce the resulting damage"

"The trial court held plaintiff had an affirmative obligation to show she did something beginning January 1, 1966, to try to relet the leased premises."

"The burden of proof was on the appellees [landlord] to show diligence in reletting the property."

"The court stated it was his impression from hearing plaintiff's testimony she was more than happy to let the lease run out and attempt to collect the balance of the rent from defendants; and it was significant that while she claimed she was unable to rent the building during the rest of the term, she was able to rent it within seven days after the lease expired.

The action of the trial court in dismissing plaintiff's petition and giving her the abandoned property covered by the attachment is

Affirmed."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17494708805208206716&q=landlord+mitigation&hl=en&as_sdt=4,16
The landlord's duty to mitigate was later codified in Iowa statute 562A.3:

https://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2018/title-xiv/chapter-562a/section-562a.29/
In DR Mobile Home Rentals v. Frost (1996) the court wrote:

"We can find no reason to believe that the enactment of chapter 562A in any way changed the common-law rule that "a showing of diligence in reletting the premises is an essential element of [a landlord's] right to recover." Vawter v. McKissick, 159 N.W.2d 538, 542 (Iowa 1968).[1] We therefore reaffirm our Vawter holding: "n an action brought by a landlord against a tenant who has wrongfully abandoned the leased premises prior to the expiration of the term, the landlord must allege and prove what [was done] in attempting to rerent the premises after [the landlord] knew or should have known they were abandoned.""

"We reverse the award for unpaid rent because the landlord failed to allege and prove what it did in attempting to rerent the abandoned unit."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1473768050980937534&hl=en&as_sdt=1000005&sciodt=4,16


In other states, both statute and case law indicate that converting the rental to the landlord's own use, i.e.: selling it without re-renting constitutes failure to mitigate.

I didn't go any further than the two cases that cited but my guess is that Iowa courts might rule similarly.

The amount at issue for OP is likely within the Iowa small claims limit of $6500.

(I don't know why this changed to italics. The gremlins won't let me put it back.)

Oh, you mean the courts actually followed the law? Amazing...

 

[Zigner]

The intent of my point is that court results do not always depend upon semantics. Yes, the plain language of the statute says re-rent the unit. However the OP should at least consult with a local attorney before assuming that the landlord would lose in court because he immediately got an offer to buy and sold the property instead and got a closing within 37 days.

This isn't semantics. The court will rule according to the law. That's the way it works. The law is clear.

 

[LdiJ]

This isn't semantics. The court will rule according to the law. That's the way it works. The law is clear.

I am sorry Zigner, but you are way to certain of exactly how every judge in every state will interpret every law, for someone who is not an attorney. You never acknowledge that there is room for different interpretations of a law. I did not say that the OP would definitely win the case if this goes to court, but its not a slam dunk for the landlord either in my opinon.

However, there is a simple solution to the problem. The OP can consult a local real estate attorney.

 

[Zigner]

I am sorry Zigner, but you are way to certain of exactly how every judge in every state will interpret every law, for someone who is not an attorney. You never acknowledge that there is room for different interpretations of a law. I did not say that the OP would definitely win the case if this goes to court, but its not a slam dunk for the landlord either in my opinon.

Watch out for those absolutes.

However, there is a simple solution to the problem. The OP can consult a local real estate attorney.

I agree that it is a good idea for the OP to do so.

 

[adjusterjack]

I also don't think that the cases you cited are really on point. None of them appear to involve a situation where the landlord started out trying to re-rent the space and ended up with a quick buyer

I think the cases are on point because the court makes it clear that the burden is on the landlord to show that positive efforts were made to re-rent. The court was quite adamant about that in both cases.

Per the OP the landlord immediately started looking for new tenants

What, exactly, does "started looking" mean? Does the landlord just "say" she started looking or can she prove she started looking by doing something like running ads on Craigslist (for example) starting on June 1.

She would certainly not be entitled to any rent from June 5 (opening of escrow) because the property was no longer available for rent.